• by Mark Naples , February 6, 2004

In the days following the Super Bowl, as what may have been either a prank or an accident or some of both turned into Boobgate, (Janetgate, Timbergate....), I was bombarded by emails and IMs from friends overseas. Of course, they all wanted to know what had actually happened and some asked me to send them links to the footage, et al. They also all wanted to know something else. None could figure out why there was such a huge uproar about it here.

If you have spent appreciable time in places like France, Italy, Scandinavia, or even England, you would know why my friends would ask this. Here in America, what's regarded as acceptable media is regarded by many overseas as mostly puritan, predominantly adolescent, and maybe even somewhat callow. A scan of the Super Bowl ads that were regarded favorably may provide some insight.

Most of the surveys I've seen since last Sunday rate the Anheuser-Busch ads for Bud and Bud Light above the rest. So, let's just look at a couple of these. I admit, the ad featuring Cedric the Entertainer getting an inadvertent bikini wax made me laugh, though it did not make me reach for the fridge. But, the creative that featured a flatulent horse blowtorching a woman who was holding a candle was, um, adolescent at best.

To me, the Cedric ad works because we know him and what his characters represent in these ads. His slapstick character is well established through previous creative and we know he'll get the girl along with his beloved Bud Light. We root for him as we laugh at him. The woman in the horse drawn carriage? I thought for a moment that she was supposed to make us think of Jessica Simpson. But, that's not the point. To be honest, I'm not sure what the point of that ad is, except that Bud can make those who drink it suffer from what seemed to be ailing that horse.

Then there's the Budweiser ad that featured the NFL ref who could handle being constantly berated by coaches because he was constantly berated at home by his wife.

Regarded in juxtaposition, is the message sent by these ads that it's okay to make fart jokes, and nasty wife jokes, and counter-salacious jokes about private body parts?

Sounds kind of adolescent, and maybe even a bit callow. But, it is indicative of the sensibilities that regulate what's acceptable in this country's media. Bash the wife, torch the girlfriend with a barnyard animal's fart and of course it's Janet Jackson's fault that her dance partner ripped off part of her costume. Mainstream American media is mostly targeted at 12 year old boys, after all. Isn't it?

I hate to say this. But, here's why it probably was her fault. My first inclination regarding Boobgate is the same as that of many of the pundits we've all read this week. There is no way that it was an accident, at least not on her part. No matter how stunned she and Timberlake looked, the stage is too big and there is too much at stake to be screwing around with something like that. A wardrobe malfunction when you didn't preview that move for the sensors, sponsors, OR the networks? Sure.

Especially when you have an album coming out in a week or two, and your marketing machine knows that it will drive a ton of Web traffic to the site that's promoting its launch. We're all impressed by what Mitsubishi pulled off with their campaign, as reported on these pages by Tobi Elkin yesterday. To be honest, I don't know what's most impressive about that campaign, from its results to its concept to its fast execution. But, 30 million hits in three days pales when compared to the hundreds of millions of impressions still being driven through Searches to the Jackson site. I guess it's cynical to assert, as so many of these pundits have, that a star of Janet Jackson's station would try to pull off such a thing as Boobgate intentionally. But, it's easy to see why these pundits have become so cynical. It's all become a bit backwards, hasn't it?

Just to prove this point, AOL is suing for its halftime sponsorship money. When I worked there in the mid 90s, the number one Search within their network was Pamela Anderson, and number two was Pamela Anderson misspelled. (think 12 year old boys) Imagine, the ISP and network that made so much money from such prurience can keep from snickering as they demand their money back. Sensibilities? I think that simple cynicism has taken over. I also understand, which is why my TV stays off most of the time.